Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 286 posts

Re: F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane

#211

Post by grandalf »

sytelus wrote: post #110
grandalf wrote: post #101

I realize this view is controversial, but net neutrality is about as logical as arguing that all residential bandwidth should be dedicated symmetrical up/down. As content + routes become mainstream (the top 1-2% of bandwidth), the price of hosting them approaches the dedicated bandwidth price. This is because the usage pattern variability is arbitraged upstream of the ISP. Preferential QoS based on content source is…

I'm not sure if you are applying this "logic" correctly. Bandwidth must be treated as utility, just like electricity and water. Like any other utilities, there should be a fixed charge for fair level of use and prorated charge beyond that to consumers of the utility. Here instead the proposal is to charge content providers and that too selectively. That means only big guys favored by cable companies can become conten…

> Bandwidth must be treated as utility, just like electricity and water.

While this sounds good, it is fairly arbitrary. Why should my connection be asymmetric 20/1 with mediocre latency? What if I prefer 10/10 with less latency? The status quo QoS benefits some types of content providers and harms others.

Re: F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane

#212

Post by shadowfox »

seehafer wrote: post #197
turing wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine it's a whole lot easier to pass campaign finance regulation than it is to transform a population of hundreds of millions of people into an intelligent, knowledgeable, rational group.

That's not the only way of making a more educated electorate. Another method would be to limit the electorate.

> That's not the only way of making a more educated electorate. Another method would be to limit the electorate.

Care to elaborate? On what criteria would you limit the electorate?

Re: F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane

#213

Post by darrenkopp »

kefka wrote: post #83
darrenkopp wrote: post #42

Signed up for yesterday, had to pay $5 comcast tax for HBO go (HBO = $15, them "letting" me use HBO go - $5). This system is bull shit.

You have a choice. You can always NOT pay the HBO "tax" and pirate it like the rest of us.

So, for HBO including their Go product with their subscription to everyone, I should stick it to HBO by for renting everything because Comcast is tacking on an additional fee (forcing me to upgrade my internet to higher tier)?

Re: F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane

#215

Post by mayneack »

briantakita wrote: post #55
parfe wrote: post #9

In six months FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler will be a VP at NBC Universal/Comcast. Not a bribe; just coincidence.

What would it take to get someone who cares about the greater good (not an industry crony) appointed to these key roles?

http://www.wolf-pac.com/

Re: F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane

#216

Post by gnoway »

rayiner wrote: post #60

People say: this could hurt startups. Which makes me think: so? Isn't it inherent to startups that they have a competitive disadvantage in areas where expensive infrastructure is required? Isn't it an inherent advantage big businesses have over startups? Let's take the history of telco monopolies off the table for a minute. Let's say these are purely privately funded networks with no government sanctioned subsidies.…

This is a strange position to take (net neutrality == affirmative action for startups?) but to answer your question: yes, it's still a good idea and yes, it artificially takes away an inherent advantage (or: 'regulates').

In this scenario I think regulation would be unfair and wrong, but it would be still be a good idea considering the public benefit. Although, were this to be the reality then I suspect we wouldn't have an Internet at all.

Re: F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane

#217

Post by unclebucknasty »

eli wrote: post #188
unclebucknasty wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kind of ironic that you're making this statement on this thread. The Net was indeed supposed to democratize the world, including, presumably, politics. A candidate would then be able to run a bootstrapped, grassroots campaign. But, that didn't happen, and for reasons very similar to the subject: entrenched interests use their money to continue advancing their own agenda through the media, other corporate gatekeepers,…

Who says it costs $1B to run for President? Obama didn't exactly win the 2008 primary by being the rich establishment candidate. He wasn't personally wealthy. He did have a very internet savvy campaign staff, though... Why don't you ask Linda McMahon how much it costs to buy a Senate seat? Not only did she spend tens of millions, she lost to a guy who is still paying back his student loans. There's nothing stopping a…

>Obama didn't exactly win the 2008 primary by being the rich establishment candidate.

You may be confusing personal wealth with campaign wealth.

Obama raised nearly a quarter billion during the primaries and 3/4 billion overall in 2008. Sure, he used the Net to raise a significant amount, but the extent to which small donors fueled his fundraising was greatly exaggerated [0].

In any case, Obama was certainly rich as a candidate, and wildly so.

>Not only did she spend tens of millions, she lost to a guy who is still paying back his student loans.

Certainly, no one is saying that the candidate who raises the most money always wins. On average, however, money matters--big time, and has an outsized impact on our electoral process. This is why so many incumbents confess that they spend an inordinate amount of their time on fundraising.

>There's nothing stopping a candidate today from using the Net to spread their political message

Well, there's nothing stopping them from trying any moreso than a startup can try to market online without a budget. In practice, it is insanely difficult to be heard and/or gain momentum in the political world without a ton of cash to spend on exposure. And, rulings like Citizens United exacerbate that problem.

Yes, there will be outlier underdogs who miraculously scratch out a win from time to time. But, the Net is nowhere near the democratizing force it could be. It is trumped handily by plain ol' cash. And, it shouldn't take a miracle for an otherwise better-qualified candidate to win an election simply because of a financial disadvantage.

>as odious as the alleged FCC changes are, they won't really change that.

Apologies for the miscommunication. I am not saying that the FCC changes will prevent candidates from trying to use the Net. I was simply noting that both our political process and the FCC have been co-opted by entrenched interests.

[0] http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/24/study-obamas-s...

Re: F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane

#218

Post by dragonwriter »

quaunaut wrote: post #161
dragonwriter wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it was as the NY Times piece (which seems to be fairly heavy on editorializing and weak on facts for a straight news piece) describes -- "will allow a company like Comcast or Verizon to negotiate separately with each content company [...] and charge different companies different amounts for priority service." However, the other reports on this have not described it that way -- e.g., the WSJ report [1] (which also…

Honestly, hell no, we need to raise hell now. If they're even thinking about this as a realistic possibility, the entire notion needs to be burned from their minds. Purged. Edit: Normally, I'm an arbiter of the 'wait and see' variety, but this is such a horrible, unethical, undemocratic, un-American idea that it cannot possibly for a moment be considered.

> Honestly, hell no, we need to raise hell now. If they're even thinking about this as a realistic possibility, the entire notion needs to be burned from their minds. Purged.

I'm just saying it will be more effective to react to the actual proposal when it is actually proposed and we know what it actually is. We have at least three conflicting news stories from anonymous sources supposedly close to the process, which suggests that at least two are mistaken (if not outright lies).

Something actually will be posted with concrete terms for public comment, and that's the time to respond to the specific content -- now, its probably better to talk about what should be in any new Open Internet order, rather than flying off the handle at rumors of what will be in the next Open Internet order.

Especially since one of the reasons extreme versions often get leaked ahead of actual proposals is to get activists to blow their top about something worse than the actual proposal, so that they aren't taken seriously when the actual proposal (bad in many of the same ways, but substantively different from what the activists have spent some period of time complaining about on the basis that it was the forthcoming proposal) is released.

Re: F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane

#219

Post by zymhan »

rsobers wrote: post #198

Apparently the reports are incorrect and the FCC will issue a statement shortly refuting the claims by the NYT: https://twitter.com/fmanjoo/status/459154485793656832

I'm crossing all of my fingers and toes. Who sent the email that he took a screenshot of, though? On second thought, I suppose that would give away his source.

Re: F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane

#220

Post by yuhong »

tzs wrote: post #89
jebblue wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler_(FCC) "Tom Wheeler is the current Chairman of the FCC.[1] Prior to working at the FCC, Wheeler worked as a venture capitalist and lobbyist for the cable and wireless industry." Wow. This looks especially bad for consumers.

By "prior", they mean 30 years ago, at a time when the cable industry was the underdog fighting against the powerful broadcasters, and cable lobbyist [1] was a pro-consumer job. Looking at what he's been involved in since then [2], it's all over the place. There's stuff in cable, stuff in wireless, stuff in phone, co-founder of a company that repairs aerospace components, PBS director, and a bunch of other things. I'…

Seems like he left the CTIA in 2004. IMO, he should be at the bottom of the list, if at all. Can someone expand the Wikipedia article?
Post reply on HN